Talk:The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus
I don't think this page is necessary. It's just listing times when characters recite the play's two famous lines. Everything in it can be found in Christopher Marlowe and Performance Arts References in Turtledove's Work#Christopher Marlowe.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:21, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :Or, as Talk:Christopher Marlowe#Deletions suggest, move the quotes to the play they come from and delete the Marlowe Arts Refs. This would be my preferred course of action. ML4E (talk) 17:08, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :Actually, just reading over the entry for Marlowe in Arts Refs, I see it mainly recaps the RB and WHGTY sub-section in his article with some references to the two Faustus lines. There is nothing there about Marlowe there that isn't covered in his article. Definitely move the quotes here and remove the Marlowe sub-section in Refs. ML4E (talk) 17:14, October 17, 2017 (UTC) ::I really don't think the HT references to the play merit the play having its own article. The TWTCE and SuVol subsections are just throwaway lines. In RB, having Marlowe recite his famous lines to the boatman is incidental to his character, as is Will's memory of Kit in WHGTY. The only reason to keep the article would be if the content of the play in RB was said to be somehow different than the OTL version a la Love's Labours Won, or if it had a special significance to the Spanish censors a la ''Richard III'', neither of which seems to be the case.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 22:03, October 19, 2017 (UTC) Well I disagree with your assessment. However, if that was done, then Cambyses II of Persia, The Cid and Yseult and Tristan should also be moved to the Marlowe Arts Refs page since there is no significance to them. They are just plays he wrote in the ATL that he didn't in OTL but are only incidentally referenced. The Refs would give them the same amount of detail for each as do the articles. ML4E (talk) 18:53, October 20, 2017 (UTC) :The existence of those plays gives insight to the timeline, since they exist only in it. The passing references to a play existing in both timelines doesn't.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:50, October 20, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm actually inclined to agree with Jonathan. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:02, October 21, 2017 (UTC) :::"The existence of those plays gives insight to the timeline ..." They do no such thing, aside from existing. They are of two historical figures from well before the POD and a legendary tale of the Arthurian type. For insight to the timeline, any other subjects of the same vintage could be substituted. Richard III (Play) gives insight in that it is the only Shakespeare historical play to exist while those of other kings of England were forbidden. The three fictional Marlowe plays do nothing similar. :::If that were the only criteria, then Arts Ref would cover it. What they do is give insight to Marlowe and his surroundings. The Cid is about a Spanish hero indicating how Marlowe cozies up to the Dons to get a play approved. Y&T displays his arrogant attempt to surpass Shakespeare. Faustus displays Marlowe's Faustian despair in the circumstances he finds himself in. The fact two are fictional ATL plays and one is from OTL has no bearing on their significance and I would argue Faustus is the most important. I am saying that if Faustus is just a recitation of famous lines, then the other three are just fictional, meaningless play names that could be anything else. I disagree with this assessment and advocate the retention of all four plays as individual articles. ML4E (talk) 15:20, October 21, 2017 (UTC) Honestly (takes deep breath) I don't think we need any of it. If we went by Turtledove, the only line in Faustus is the bit about not being in Hell. The article a long redundancy, and could be very easily handled at the Marlowe Lit ref section, or even the Marlowe page (see, e.g. Bismarck's sausage or Mikoyan's raindancing). I don't think the various plays Marlowe wrote need their own stand-alone articles, either. As ML4E points out, the various fictional plays of Marlowe don't provide the same insights in the RB TL that Shakespeare's plays often do. In fact, when I read RB the first time, I think I assumed that they were legit plays. I certainly attached no special significance to them when they were referenced. I suggest we move the main text of nearly all of the articles to one location (lit refs or Marlowe proper) and leave redirects. TR (talk) 18:30, October 21, 2017 (UTC) :I think I can agree with that. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, October 22, 2017 (UTC) :My preference is still to keep all four articles, but if we do this, then I would prefer the Faustus line be put at the start of the Marlowe article similar to Bismark and Mikoyan articles. I see we already have Y&T in Lit. Ref. so adding the other two there would be all right. The new addition of "Misery loves company" for WBtP at the end seems unnecessary since attributing the phrase is speculative. Its just an old saying that resonates and could have come up by anyone. The speculation on a Marlowe analog seems unnecessary. ML4E (talk) 18:07, October 22, 2017 (UTC)